At a Santa Barbara retreat, I had the pleasure of meeting Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu.
http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/AbuG.htm
Like other military men I have met, Colonle Cucullu knows his stuff. He was participating in a panel on the War in Iraq, and after his panel he showed a film detailing various events and occurrences in Iraq that the mainstream media will simply not show.
I have said on more than one occasion that the Iraq War was the right thing to do. Colonel Cucullu reinforced my view. The fact that the other side deliberately ignores and tries to bury any good news at all shows their panic of defending their own position. Given that I believe what I espouse, it makes life easier.
With that, I bring the words of Colonel Cucullu.
“The casualty rates in Iraq are lower now than they were during the Clinton years. They were losing one soldier per day in training accidents. The training is better now.”
“What we need now is a Congress with some testosterone. We don’t have it right now.”
“We have zero strategy. We denigrate our enemies, but they have a strategy. Their strategy is to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel.”
“Exiting Iraq will not end the war. While we are busy navel gazing and engaging in domestic hatred, they are planning an attack that could bring us down.”
“The first suicide bomber was a Bangladeshi woman. As always, women are more dangerous. I expect looks for that remark.”
“With counterinsurgency, it is up to the people to decide. Do they choose life or death?”
“The people chose life. They saw two things. They saw that our marines could not be beaten. Then they saw that our marines were not leaving. That brought them to our side.”
“This was always going to be a regional war.”
“We cannot change Iranian behavior. We can only change the Iranian regime. For 30 years, we tried to change Iranian behavior. It did not work. There is no better candidate for regime change than Iran.”
“All people are not the same. All people are not good. This is Machiavellianism vs Multiculturalism. Acknowledging evil requires action, which sometimes means war.”
“Democratic societies don’t like war. They must be pushed into it. In World War II it took an attack on American soil to drag us into war. We are saved by our enemies, not our leaders.”
“War and preparation for war is the history of mankind, not peace.”
“The other side understands that one spear will not kill the dragon. However, many spears will bleed us to death.”
Colonel Cucullu’s message is a tough one. If it changes even one anti-war activist’s mind, then the world will be a better, safer, and more reasonable place.
I enjoyed meeting Colonel Cucullu.
Colonel…Thank you sir. Thank you, and welcome home.
eric
“The casualty rates in Iraq are lower now than they were during the Clinton years. They were losing one soldier per day in training accidents. The training is better now.”
Very interesting.
I’m gonna research this. If it pans out, and I’m sure it will, it makes a key pont and arguement in almost all debates in the Iraq war.
First starting with the media. If this is true then there will be no doubt(not that there was much left) left in my mind that the majority of the media wants Bush to look bad.
These kind of stats are so important and paramount, yet we never hear about them.
Is it just me or do we have waaaaaay too many Jack D Rippers and Buck Tugidsons running around in uniform these days?
JMJ
Yea, maybe we should transfer them all to the peace corps.
That’ll take care of things
Jersey, Please explain anything that remotely suggests a James Bond attitude from this retired officer…
It’s not a James Bond reference, it’s a Dr.Strangelove reference, and it’s still off the mark.
I don’t see one comment there that talks about “vital fluids,” or any other paranoid delusion.
No, this is just a vain attempt at humor, that only serves to besmirch those who serve.
Well, ya gotta admit.
Its funny when they make the attempt
Paranoid dellusions, yous say?
“We have zero strategy. We denigrate our enemies, but they have a strategy. Their strategy is to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel.”
“Exiting Iraq will not end the war. While we are busy navel gazing and engaging in domestic hatred, they are planning an attack that could bring us down.”
“The first suicide bomber was a Bangladeshi woman. As always, women are more dangerous. I expect looks for that remark.”
“This was always going to be a regional war.”
“We cannot change Iranian behavior. We can only change the Iranian regime. For 30 years, we tried to change Iranian behavior. It did not work. There is no better candidate for regime change than Iran.”
“All people are not the same. All people are not good. This is Machiavellianism vs Multiculturalism. Acknowledging evil requires action, which sometimes means war.”
“War and preparation for war is the history of mankind, not peace.”
“The other side understands that one spear will not kill the dragon. However, many spears will bleed us to death.”
LOL!
And then there’s these little disinegenuous gems…
““The casualty rates in Iraq are lower now than they were during the Clinton years. They were losing one soldier per day in training accidents. The training is better now.”
“With counterinsurgency, it is up to the people to decide. Do they choose life or death?”
“The people chose life. They saw two things. They saw that our marines could not be beaten. Then they saw that our marines were not leaving. That brought them to our side.”
“Democratic societies don’t like war. They must be pushed into it. In World War II it took an attack on American soil to drag us into war. We are saved by our enemies, not our leaders.”
And then of course this littl misogynist message…
“What we need now is a Congress with some testosterone. We don’t have it right now.”
The mans obviously dangerously Insane. I stand firmly on my first comment.
JMJ
Deaconblue: I had a little military mania, and somehow the current in my brain went static and equated Dr Strangelove with Dr No…… Sometimes I’m a nut.
Jersey: your disingenuous comments suggest naivete and ignorance. All you did is repeat what the Colonel said…
What do you know about training deaths? What do you know about the current casualty rate…or the clear/hold/build strategy? COIN? I could break down each one of the above points, but invincible ignorance is impenetrable.
“What do you know about training deaths? What do you know about the current casualty rate…or the clear/hold/build strategy?”
What does all that have to do with what I wrote?
Nice generalizations there, Eagle. Care to elaborate? No. Wait. Don’t. Hows about this – since you sommented on my comments, please show me where I was wrong in my comments. Okay?
The man, to me, is scary nuts. I will elaborate if you will.
JMJ
Jersey, all you did was make snide condescending remarks, you made no concrete ppoits or sustainable claims.
I’ll show you where you’re wrong.
But of course you have to be honest and go to the links and do real unbiased research
I see it this way.
There was approx 2920 days in Clintons term.
And then theres this.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html
1996 …….. 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
2002 ……… 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
I said I would investigate this Jersey. I just got back from the beach and it took me a whole 5 minutes to find it.
Go to the link and then tell me Colonel Gordon is disengenuous
“MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS— Bet you didn’t know the following! I surely did not. ”
“These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:”——————————————————————————————————————————
Heres another perspective from another source.
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003564.html
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
( Only a rthree year span)
“Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton’s term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones).
I’m guessing that total deaths in 2005 are probably about the same as 2004. 2004 saw 848 deaths in Iraq, 2005 saw 846.
This is, of course very informative and counter to nearly everything you hear on a daily basis, but don’t forget that the militaries under Carter, Reagan, and Bush I were significantly larger than today’s force. Of course, you could also make the argument that the gutting of the military under Clinton set the stage for too few “boots on the ground” in 2003 and beyond, which critics often claim is a contributing factor to the struggle to get the violence under control in the aftermath of the invasion.
But let’s not get all hyped up over this. Yes, things aren’t nearly as doomy and gloomy as Legacy Media tries to tell us, but we should know this already. Here’s a couple of charts I threw together to illustrate the numbers:”———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
And yet, another source
http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/F8B1ABCC-B33A-4B02-8F57-2C056504A71F/
External Source
The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That’s 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who’s counting?
4,417 Military deaths during Clinton’s non-war administration.
3,133 under Bush during a War
Hopefully this will give some perspective to those people who like to hype the war dead.
Thats how a fair and genuine position is made jersey !
Not just bla bla this, and bla bla that.
Go to the links, or better yet find your own and no matter what you come up with, the real question will be this.
HOW THE HELL DID CLINTON LOSE SO MANY OF OUR GUYS WITHOUT EVEN FIGHTING A WAR ?
Micky, my “snide remarks” were not meant to be “condescending.” They were just questions ad addendum. ;)
Oh God man, and that practically peacetime stat? LOL!!! You have to be kidding. As I’m sure our good host knows (after speaking to all that brass), troops have less accidents when engaged than when idle waiting for engagement. Hell, I read that from some ol’ Patton book. Everyone knows that. Of course!
JMJ
You want to compare accident ratios in relative peace with wartime rations? Really? Is this a joke?
JMJ
No!
See, you’re not being honest again.
Shouldnt the ratio be higher considering the risk is higher ?
If they have less accidents when engaged that stiil doesnt explain the ratio since evn in war time not all soldiers are engaged.
The fact of the matter is that guys like you will blame everything on Bush.
Well ? are you going to blame the greater ratio on Clinton ?
Besides that, if you botherd to go to the links you will see that the totals include war time and non engaged accidents.
Troops under Bush at war, 3133
Troops under Clinton with no war 4417
How does Clinton lose more guys who are supposedly not at risk than Bush does with guys who are actually fighting ?
The point is dude, the casualty rates in Iraq are as minimal as they have ever been in any war.
I have a feeling its because Clinton was cheap on the military and was dwindling it down to nothing and the training standards sucked.
Whereas Bush had invested in our military a whole lot better than clinton.
And the facts show that we are not losing one man a day in training accidents as we were in the Clinton days, that is the real arguement here, its what I said I would research, and I found out that it was truth.
Do you have any truths you can add to this ?
Otherwise I suggest you go on hold until the next topic or thread.
Because any further attempt on your part will really not do your image any good.
Man, thats about as bad as gets, to lose more troops when they’re idol than when they’re fighting.
Thats just wrong.
Since this war began I have been making the point that the deaths are overblown and that we lose about as many stateside in training accidents. Nice to see that somebody has the stats that prove it. The death rate during this war have been remarkably low but nobody wants to mention that. Even the deaths in theater that are quoted include training accidents DUI related deaths and others but the media acts as if all are combat fatalities.
I wish more people were aware that we lost more military personnel during the Clinton Years than the Bush years. Isn’t that an eye opener. To bad the media, democrats and Jersey don’t want to deal wit the facts
Jersey if I follow your logic we should spend more time at war because peacetime causes more military deaths since our warfighters are more alert. Thats pretty screwy logic if you ask me.
I still don’t see any paranoid delusions. We’re not talking about fictional “fiendish flouridators” sneaking mind control drugs into water supplies. What we are talking about are hard facts, incidents that have happened, and are still possible now.
You take the various quotes, but never once actually say what you believe to be wrong with them. Even your “misogynist” comment is off the mark, as it reads far too much into it, rather than take it as a colloquialism, which it is. PC run amok once again.
Well, firstly, how we got stuck on this grisly and rather nasty subject is beyond me. And how grimly convenient of you guys to leave aside the impact of modern battlefield and post-battlefield medicine and the tens of thousands of seriously, catastrophically injured soldiers that certainly would have died in past wars, elevating the numbers exponentially.
Anyways…
Deacon,
The colonel’s comment regarding “testosterone” was so laughable, so insane, so juvenile, that just for that alone I would question both his maturity and sanity.
JMJ
Jersey, We weren’t talking about past wars – we were talking relative peacetime (aside from Panama, Grenada, Somalia…)… and if memory serves me right, you have railed against Congress for not having the gonads to tell President Bush “no”…oftentimes gonads are associated with testosterone…
No doubt the Combat Lifesaver training,
…computer said I was posting too quickly and to slow down! Anyway, CLS, advanced medical techniques, Risk Assessments, Motorcycle and vehicle safety programs, and intensified Suicide Prevention programs have reduced casualties, but the point is pretty significant: with two major fronts, casualties are still lower than during relative peacetime.
Something tells me that’s not what the colonel was talking about.
JMJ
I won’t waste my time arguing with Jersey… I’d rather beat my head against a tree trunk – it would be far more rewarding.
Good post, Eric, and I welcome the good Colonel home too. Somehow though, I don’t think he is going to change even one anti-war activist’s mind, because they don’t think with their minds, they think with their “feelings.” They aren’t realists. If they were they couldn’t possibly be for Barack Obama.
Yea Jersey, its almost basic math and comparative thinking.
Two wars in place for nearly 7 years.
Include the numbers that also have to be trained to support these wars.
We also have a larger number of recruits today than in Clintons term.
More dead while applying themselves directly to military exercises with Clinton that with Bush.
Google it.
The numbers will be slightly different at most sources, and you can bet the sources you like will skew the numbers far from center.
But you see, I’ve already done this and showed you a portion of the results and there is no doubt that the military under Bush has been trained and equipped in a far superior manner than as opposed to Clinton.
Now, as far as the “testosterone comment goes.
You are grabbing at straws and look childishly pedantic on saying it was a mysoginist statement
If the colonel had suggested that our congress be a little more firm in its decision making would he be suggesting that all the female members of congress have big boners ?
If he had suggested that congress be a little more compassionate and gentle does that mean all male members have to show up in drag ?
You yourself have claimed to be a feminist so I’m sure you would agree that there are women who have shown to have bigger cajones than some men , right ?
So whats the problem ?
Eric;
Everything looks good, though the theme song does slow down load time a bit.
You’ve been bloody busy! Nice work meeting these luminaries!
Rudy
The stats don’t lie: Hussein Obama is a bad man.
I found his Obama comments interesting. On my site, http://www.marchreport.com, I’m running a story wherein Malik Obama, the candidate’s brother, says that Barack was raised as a Muslim and was very devout. Personally, I don’t care what a person’s religion is (I converted to Buddhism 37 years ago), but why lie about it? The story originates with an Alan Keyes supporter (Obama defeated Keyes in 2004) and was obviously released to damage Obama, but it’s the lie that makes it damaging.
If you want to read this, and you do so after June 19, go to the archives section of marchreport.com & click on June 19